TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority was liable to be condoned by computing limitation from the date of service on the authorised representative. (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty for the period 01.04.2010 to 08.04.2010 under the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules on the basis of continuous closure of the factory.
Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority was liable to be condoned by computing limitation from the date of service on the authorised representative.
Analysis: Service of the order on a person who was not the authorised advocate in the proceedings was held not to be valid service on the assessee. Limitation was therefore required to be counted from the date on which the order was actually received by the proper representative of the assessee. On that basis, the appeal was found to be delayed only by about 28 days, which was within the condonable range.
Conclusion: The delay was rightly condoned and the assessee succeeded on the limitation issue.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty for the period 01.04.2010 to 08.04.2010 under the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules on the basis of continuous closure of the factory.
Analysis: The relevant rule grants abatement where the factory does not produce notified goods during a continuous period of 15 days or more. The factory remained closed or out of production continuously for 85 days, and the closure was not broken merely because the month changed. The lower authority erred in treating the period 01.04.2010 to 08.04.2010 as ineligible on the premise that the suspension in that month was less than 15 days.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to abatement for the disputed period and the disallowance was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in full, the disallowance of abatement was set aside, and the assessee was held entitled to consequential relief including adjustment of the duty amount for April 2010.
Ratio Decidendi: For abatement under the relevant packing-machines regime, the qualifying period of closure is to be computed as one continuous period of closure, not by dividing it according to calendar months, and invalid service on an unauthorised person cannot defeat the assessee's right to a timely appeal.
TaxTMI 
